Hi Phil.
> Can you live with r1180315?
[I guess that you are talking to me.]
I still stand with the arguments of my other post about this "1e-9" constant
being confusing for the "non numerics-aware" users.
However, I can understand that we may want to also document the departure
from the math definition incurred by numerical considerations. So, I'd
propose to add:
"The direct assignment to 1 for values below 1e-9 is an efficiency
optimization on the ground that the result of the full computation
is indistinguishable from 1 due to the limited accuracy of the floating
point representation."
Is that OK with you?
Regards,
Gilles
P.S. I also cannot live with the missing "@" in the {@code ...} tag
construct. ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
